The American Spectator

Alan Brooks| 2.5.09 @ 3:27PM

perhaps, though it is difficult to write anything for sure anymore-- 2009 has the same feel to it as that Alice In Wonderland Year, 1968, the $819 billion might better go to doing something-- anything-- about immigration, that is to say ameliorating the difficulties of being Amerimexico, and not America.
however $819 is probably only chump change in that context.

Bob| 2.6.09 @ 8:38AM

So perhaps, RSM, we should use the Bush/Republican solution where in the last 8 years where the debt created was 8 times the size of this stimulus plan? As anyone with any brains knows, the CBO is filled with accountants, not economists. They do a great job of deconstructing history but a terrible job of predicting future events. The total debt created by Reagan and Bush was more than half of what we owe today.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

What the CBO does not say is where the economy will be if nothing is done. Furthermore, they don't take the next step and say that the ONLY way that debt will be reduced is to reform social security and medicare as they account for most of the federal budget.

I'm not a big fan of some of the spending in the stimulus bill and also not a fan of the Republican ideas of tax cuts at any cost. There are some targeted tax cuts that make sense like the payroll tax cut and the housing and auto credits. But overall rate cuts are just stupid given their history. The same is true of a lot of the pork.

Indiana Alex| 2.6.09 @ 9:19AM

It doesn't take a genius to realize that when credit markets are stressed, throwing another trillion on the pile doesn't help.

Hmm, rate cuts, or allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, is equal to pork spending?

I've never thought of it that way. Then again I'm not insane.

Bob| 2.6.09 @ 9:39AM

Perhaps, Indiana, you should either study economics or learn how to analyze data. The old saw about individuals "keeping more of their own money" has NEVER worked. It didn't work with Reagan and it didn't work with Bush. Perhaps with your simpleton's explanation of spending, you would recommend that if a little cutting is good, we should cut ALL of government. You know, no trash pickup, no sewers, no military, etc.

By the way, you should get a professional opinion about your possible insanity...

Terry| 2.6.09 @ 9:48AM

I'm not one to meddle, but I just had to comment.

"It didn't work with Reagan...?

What?!

Indiana Alex| 2.6.09 @ 10:14AM

Three great lessons of the 20th century - The power of the individual over the power of government to power the economy is undisputed. (just ask the former USSR, China, India, almost all of Eastern Europe, the hundreds of millions of people killed or impoverished by communist thugs)
Liberals will ALWAYS call people names (or throw food at those) that disagree with them.
Liberals are ALWAYS so impressed with thier own intelligence that they can ignore history and live in fantasy.

Bob| 2.6.09 @ 10:18AM

Actually, Terry, it did not work with Reagan. Even conservative economists agree. There are a number of myths surrounding Reagan. Before you comment back, please look at the links for the data. First of all, the economy didn't grow under Reagan more than any other President. In fact, the economy grew faster under Clinton than Reagan. Here is a chart of GDP that shows this data:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

Secondly, the only real effect of the tax cuts were the huge increase in debt under Reagan. Here is the effect on the national debt:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

The reductions in taxes had no effect on federal spending. The reason for that is that most of the federal spending is on social security, medicare, the military, and interest and no politician will touch those programs to any great degree:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S1-Federal-Spending-Has-Increased.html

Again, as most economists agree, monetary policy has a greater effect on the economy than tax policy. This is a chart of the fed funds rate over time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_(effective).svg

It shows that any positive effect over Reagan's presidency was due more to monetary policy than tax policy. FYI, presidents have little to say over monetary policy because of the independence of the Fed.

While I criticize Reagan's economic policy, I voted for him and thought he was one of the best Presidents we've had primarily because of his transformational effect on the psyche of the public and the pressure he put on ending the cold war. Clinton was better for the economy, but he was not one of the great presidents.